Trusteeship - November/December 2020 - 40

REFLECTIONS

ents, but were serving on the committee to
hire someone who would represent all the
constituents. It was important to bring our
backgrounds to the conversation while also
keeping our minds open to the fact that we
needed to hire someone who would meet
the needs of all stakeholders and that some
of those needs were in direct conflict with
each other. Stating this upfront and clearly
was necessary to set expectations and avoid
arguments/conflicts if a committee member
felt they had a responsibility to "fight" for
a particular constituency. One important
caveat is that I felt strongly that the voices
that historically had not been represented on
such a committee needed to be represented
on this one. Particularly, voices of those
who had been left out of higher education
because of systemic oppression.
With a 23-person committee, time
was always front of mind as the chair. I
continued to make it clear that we had an
agenda and time restrictions as a way to
keep the discussions focused. I apologized
in advance for cutting people off to ensure
everyone got a voice. Explaining that people who have not spoken will get a chance
to speak before others receive a second
opportunity to opine was a tactic used. One
method that I have found particularly helpful throughout my career and in this case,
was to let folks know that silence is a form
of agreement. In other words, if someone
agreed with a point that had been made
there was no need to take time to express
that agreement. Otherwise put, if you want
to reiterate a point that has been previously
made hold your thought and only speak if
you are making a point that has not been
expressed by anyone else. Lastly, as discussions on a particular subject slowed I would
ask if anyone wanted to add something that
had not been expressed and/or would alter
the way we were viewing the discussion.
Several committee members commented
that these approaches helped them focus
their thoughts, hold some comments (that
had already been made), and helped to
move the conversation along.
40 TRUSTEESHIP NOV. DEC. 2020

If someone agreed with a point
that had been made there was
no need to take time to express
that agreement. Otherwise put,
if you want to reiterate a point
that has been previously made
hold your thought and only
speak if you are making a point
that has not been expressed
by anyone else.

Narrowing the Field
The committee received more than 65
applications for the position. While that
may not seem like many for those serving
in corporate human resources or on faculty
hiring committees, let me assure you, it was
a lot of reading, time, and attentiveness.
Be sure that the committee has a rubric
that is developed directly from the job profile. This rubric should be used by committee members to rank all of the candidates
prior to the initial committee meeting
where candidates will be discussed. In our
case, we asked our lead consultant to identify candidates that he would remove from
our list. I offered that if any committee
member had a desire to discuss one of the
people who were tagged by the consultant
to be removed we would add the candidate
back to the list. Several committee members took me up on that offer. Delineations
between highly qualified, qualified, and
unqualified were identified. Remember to
come back to the committee charge and the
job profile whenever necessary.
Making committee meetings interesting and fun can help with flow and
engagement. Introduce some activities
for committee members to explore candidates. After we narrowed down our top
candidates for interviews, I decided to take
a risk by having the committee break into
small groups and do an activity. This was

not previously discussed or planned. The
committee broke into small groups and
each was assigned a candidate. The task
was to come up with the reasons a candidate should be interviewed followed by the
reasons the candidate should not be interviewed. It turned out to be worth the risk
because committee members who were
adamantly opposed to interviewing some
candidates were forced to articulate qualities that could warrant an interview. While
this was hard for some committee members, it proved valuable because everyone
felt comfortable with moving forward with
interviews for the identified candidates. In
addition, it provided a break from the normal flow of a committee meeting.
There was one notable moment that
could be a learning lesson for those chairing a committee in higher education and
other industries. The committee was discussing a particular candidate's interview
during which answers were more narrative and offered historical context before
directly addressing questions. For many on
the committee, this was confusing, frustrating, and a sign of an inability to lead the
university. And, those committee members were not shy about articulating that.
After comments from several committee
members sharing this sentiment I called on
someone who shared a similar background
as the candidate to give another interpretation. This person reframed the answers in
a way that educated committee members
on a cultural dynamic that many had not
experienced and changed the dynamic of
the discussion. Other committee members weighed in with agreement and made
their case for the candidate. The candidate
received 22/23 votes to become a finalist.
I revert back to the selection of the committee members that led to such a fruitful,
diverse, and productive conversation that
leads to desired outcomes. Without the
intentional selection of a diverse committee, conversations like this would not have
been possible and the candidate certainly
would not have become a finalist.

Trusteeship - November/December 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Trusteeship - November/December 2020